Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Richard Bauckham is professor emeritus
at the University of Saint Andrews, Scotland, in New Testament studies. He is
senior scholar at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, and a fellow of the both the British
Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He has written many books involving
the New Testament. This review of his most recently published book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, is intended
to very briefly present a few of the key concepts described therein.

From the beginning

If the Gospel accounts contain
eyewitness testimony, how much of the material is directly attributable to
specified individuals? Are these accounts a collection of events witnessed by
different people over the span of Jesus’ ministry? Richard Bauckham describes a
literary device utilized by biographical writers of that time period which
particularly identifies one or more individuals who were present throughout the
duration of the events written in the account. For example, Mark specifically
mentions Peter very early in his account (Mark 1:16). Hellenistic
historiography commonly used a phrase identifying “eyewitnesses from the
beginning” (p.118). This is a claim that eyewitnesses had been present
throughout the entirety of the events described. Philo of Byblos, writing about
the same time as Luke, used language that was very similar to Luke’s
Gospel: “from the first” and Plutarch
wrote that he recounted “everything from the beginning” (p.120). Luke’s Gospel
claims his account was “handed down to us by those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:2). And, when Jesus spoke with the disciples after his
resurrection of the coming Holy Spirit, He then said: “You also are to testify because you have
been with me from the beginning” (John 15:27).

Inclusio

A similar related device used by Mark
and John is termed the Inclusio by
Bauckham, meaning that an eyewitness – in these cases, a disciple of Jesus –
was present at or near the start of Jesus’ ministry as well as present at the
end. This person is specifically named in the earliest portion of these books,
then again near the end, indicating that this person was a participating
eyewitness for the entire duration of the events and, therefore, is a reliable
witness. For example, Mark first mentions Simon Peter in Chapter 1, verse 16,
immediately after Jesus’ baptism by John as one of the first two disciples
called with his brother Andrew. After more than 20 specific references to
Peter, Mark then bookends his eyewitness testimony with a reference in the last
chapter after the resurrection when the angel at the tomb told the women to
“go, tell his disciples and Peter,
‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee.’” (Mark 16:7) Luke also made sure that
Simon Peter was the first and last disciple to be individually named in his
Gospel (4:38, 24:34). This technique of eyewitness testimony was also used by
non-Christian writer Lucian in his biography of Alexander written around 180
AD. Lucian wrote with the purpose of exposing Alexander as a charlatan (p.132).
Early in the account, he mentioned Rutilianus as Alexander’s most prominent
follower, specifically referenced him about a dozen more times, then again at
the end, indicating that he was present essentially throughout the time span of
the writing. And, neo-Platonist philosopher Porphyry wrote a biography of his
teacher Plotinus about 30 years after the death of Plotinus, which is at least
as much as the time period between Jesus’ death and Mark’s writing. Porphyry
wrote of Amelius, a close follower of Plotinus, in the first section of his
account, over 20 more times specifically, then again at the end. Porphyry also
includes himself throughout much of that span, using the same literary
convention of eyewitness testimony, according to Richard Bauckham.

Eyewitness Memory

We are typically confident of our own
memories, but frequently skeptical of those of others. The reliability of
eyewitness testimony presented as evidence in court is frequently questioned.
And, many psychological studies have been conducted concerning the accuracy of
recollective memories. To answer the questions regarding which types of events
are best remembered, as well as which sort of memories are more likely to be reliable,
Bauckham lists the following factors as important considerations:

1.Unique
or unusual event.
Studies have confirmed – as have our own personal experiences – that these are
more likely to be remembered than typical, repeated events. We remember those
which are out of the ordinary. Closely connected to this is the unexpectedness of the event (p. 331) and
Jesus was the master of doing or saying the unexpected.

2.Salient
or consequential –
those which are more important to us or more significant. The many landmark
events witnessed by Jesus’ disciples would have been of huge personal
significance and, in many cases, the
most memorable events of their lives.

3.Personal
emotional involvement.
Intense emotions can be related to positive or negative events. The gospel
eyewitnesses were not detached observers, but intimately involved participants.
On several occasions, they feared for their lives (Mark 4:38 and John 20:19).
On others, they were very distraught (Luke 22:62).

4.Irrelevant
detail. If one or more
persons involved in an event recall details which are not directly related to
the main event, this lends itself to trustworthiness of the account. The
paucity of irrelevant details in the gospel narratives does not contradict
their reliability since these have likely been honed for ease of remembering.

5.Dating.
Recollected memories often “exclude absolute time information from most
events” (p.333). Alternatively, typical memories include information related to
location, actions, persons, emotions, and thoughts. While we may remember the
time of day (e.g., morning, night, etc.), the date is not recalled unless it is
significant for some other reason, such as birthday, holiday, or anniversary.

6.Frequent
rehearsal. Other than
#1 above, this is probably the most significant factor in the New Testament
accounts. The retelling of an event, particularly in the presence of other
eyewitnesses, further solidifies it in the memory. Events surrounding the life
of Jesus were certainly retold by eyewitnesses many, many times.

Anonymous tradition
or eyewitness testimony?

The whole argument of the book can be
boiled down to the proposition that the Gospel accounts were written by
individual authors (not passed on by communities), by named eyewitnesses, who
remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions (p. 290). The
disciples of Jesus preached throughout the region about what they saw and
heard. As they grew older, followers or students learned from the disciples
personally and continued the tradition. For example, Polycarp spent much time
with John, a firsthand eyewitness, and Irenaeus spent time with Polycarp.
Basilides received his teaching from Glaucias, a personal disciple of Peter.
Valentinus received traditions from Theudas, a disciple of Paul. So, the Gospel
accounts were far from anonymous traditions.

In the 20th century, a
widespread assumption among some New Testament scholarship was that the written
Gospels had been circulated anonymously in the early church. Like folklore of
that time, these were supposed to have been passed down by communities anonymously.
However, Bauckham cites several reasons for rejecting this view.

First, evidence shows that at least
three books – Luke, John, and Matthew – were not intended to be anonymous.
Though the author’s name does not appear specifically in the text, hearers of
that time knew the identity of the author. In fact, it was not unusual at that
time for the author’s name to not be listed. Much of Lucian’s Life of Demonax, a biographical account,
is written in the first person and readers were obviously expected to know he
was the author.

Secondly, evidence of the earliest
manuscripts, from c. 200 onward, indicates titles of the four canonical Gospels
were in the form “Gospel according to …” And, it was standard procedure to mark
the scrolls on the exterior with the author’s name and a brief title. Codices
were typically marked in several locations on the outside.

Papias – “A living
and surviving voice”

One of the earliest church fathers who
transmitted the traditions in eyewitness accounts was Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis,
located not far from Laodicea and Colossae. He completed a major work, Exposition of the Logia of the Lord, in
five books, early in the second century. Unfortunately, this work did not
survive, but portions were passed down to us through Eusebius in his work, History of the Church. Papias was
personally acquainted with the daughters of Philip the evangelist, who were
well-known as prophets (Acts 21:8-9). Philip himself spent the last years of
his life in Hierapolis and Papias may have also met him personally. Papias
wrote of a period of time around 80 A.D. when he made a concerted effort to
collect the oral reports of the words and life of Jesus. This was near the time
when the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were in early circulation as well
(p.14). Eusebius quotes the prologue to Papias’s work:

“… I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down well,
for the truth of which I vouch … I inquired about the words of the elders – [that
is,] what [according to the elders] what Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas, or
James, or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder
John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information
from books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving
voice (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4).”

A key point here is that Papias,
though he was aware of the written Gospel accounts in circulation, valued
greatly a “living and surviving voice” to personally tell of eyewitness
accounts of Jesus. These were not anonymous traditions spread by word of mouth
through multiple retellings by uninformed individuals. The transmission of
historical truths by Papias is indicative of the spread of information regarding
the life of Jesus – from eyewitnesses who personally described what they saw
and heard.

Form criticism and
names

Form criticism of the Gospels was
pioneered and developed by three very influential German scholars around
1920: Karl Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, and
Rudolf Bultmann. These and other similar critics identified the Gospels as folk
literature that began as oral traditions of stories surrounding Jesus of
Nazareth. As the tales were spread, they were shaped by the needs of each
individual community, the Sitz im Leben
(“setting in life”) in which they were told. Some examples of the forms these
stories took include: preaching,
worship, catechism, and apologetics. One of the identifying factors of form
criticism is allegedly increasing detail, such as personal names which may not
have been present in the early spread of the stories, but were added later. In
the Gospel accounts, this would be evident in comparing the book of Mark,
written first, with the other Synoptics – Luke and Matthew – written later.
Then, further comparison could be made with John, written last. Bauckham notes
that material common to the three Synoptic Gospels show an unambiguous tendency
toward the elimination of names, refuting Bultmann’s argument (p.42). For
example, Mark names Bartimaeus (10:46), who is mentioned, but unnamed, by
Matthew (20:30) and Luke (18:35).

The Beloved
Disciple and the Gospel of John

Bauckham spent two chapters
discussing, in some detail, the identity of the writer of the book of John. He
believes the author of this Gospel was an eyewitness and a personal disciple of
Jesus, putting him in a small minority among contemporary Johannine scholars
(p.552). He presents some evidence that the term “disciple” included more than
the traditional twelve, such as Luke 6:13, 19:37, and Acts 1:21-23. Bauckham
believes the “Beloved Disciple” wrote the Gospel of John, but is not John, son
of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21), or any of the twelve. He presents evidence that the
writer may be a less well-known disciple of Jesus, whom Papias calls John the
Elder. The identity is still debated among Biblical scholars and Backham’s
contribution is well-researched.

Saturday, April 1, 2017

If
Jesus Christ caused so much trouble in first century Israel, certainly the Jews
would have written of Him, right? So, what ancient Semitic writings are extant
that mention Jesus of Nazareth? Does the rabbinical literature corroborate
Biblical accounts and, if not, why? First, we need to understand the primary
source documents from that time period, which are contained in the Talmud.

What is the Talmud?

Briefly,
ancient Jews passed down large amounts of Biblical (Old Testament) commentary
and tradition from generation to generation. Rabbi Akiba, before his death in
A.D. 135, and Rabbi Meir, organized and revised the material. Around A.D. 200,
Rabbi Judah completed the project, which became known as the Mishnah (literally
“teaching” or “repetition”). This was known as the Tannaitic Period. Commentary
on the Mishnah was labeled the Gemaras[1] and was compiled from the
third through the sixth centuries, during the Ammoraic Period. Gemara is
derived from the Hebrew word meaning “to finish”.

During
the Ammoraic Period, two schools existed, one in Babylonia and another in
Palestine. From approximately A.D. 350-425, the Mishnah and Gemara were
combined in the first school at Jerusalem, called the Palestinian Talmud. The
second school, in Babylonia, also included the Mishnah and Gemara, but
continued to be compiled until around A.D. 500, so was a larger collection.
This became known as the Babylonian Talmud. The word Talmud literally means
“learning”.[2] Volumes could be written
on this subject, but that will suffice as a short introduction.

Jesus in the Talmud

A
highly significant quotation is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.
Translated into English, it reads:

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was
hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and
cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and
enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him
come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in
his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”[3]

Yeshu
(sometimes, Yeshua) is derived from the Aramaic or Hebrew and translated into
English as Jesus. But, someone might question whether this refers to Jesus
Christ, because this person was “hanged”, not crucified, as the Bible states.
Actually, the New Testament twice refers to Jesus being hanged: Galatians 3:13 (Greek kremamenos) and Luke
23:39 (Greek kremasthenton). The term “hang” does not strictly refer to the
modern notion of hanging by a rope noose around the neck, but can include other
methods of attachment to a wooden pole, as evidenced by Paul and Luke’s usage
of the term.

Five points

From
this Talmudic passage, several significant points may be understood. Gary
Habermas, Ph.D., Michigan State University, History and Philosophy of Religion,
lists these as follows:

1.The fact of Jesus’ death by
crucifixion

2.The timing of the event, twice
mentioned as occurring on the eve of Passover

3.No witnesses came forward to defend
him, and he was killed

4.Jesus was judged by the Jews to be
guilty of “sorcery” and spiritual apostasy

5.It was publicly announced beforehand
that Jesus would be stoned. This was the standard method of execution by the
Jews, though not specifically mentioned in the Bible. However, Jesus was
threatened with this fate on other occasions (John 8:58-59, 10:31-33, 39)[4]

Significance

So,
what significance can we derive for a modern day understanding of the Bible
from this passage written from 1,500 to 2,000 years ago? Josh McDowell graduated
from Wheaton College and Magna Cum Laude from Talbot Theological Seminary. Concerning
this writing, he and Bill Wilson noted:

“This passage is significant because
of what it does not deny. First, it does not deny Jewish involvement in Jesus’
death. In fact, it does not even mention the Romans. Rather, it seeks to
demonstrate the Jewish authorities carried out the sentencing, but in a just
manner. The result is a clear affirmation of the historicity of Jesus and his
death. Second, this passage does not deny that Jesus performed miracles.
Rather, it tries to explain them away as being accomplished through sorcery or
magic. The same response to Jesus’ miracles is reported in Mark 3:22 and
Matthew 9:34; 12:24. Once again, there is a clear affirmation of the
historicity of Jesus, and this time of his miracles as well.”[5]

Comments
in this passage are just about what one would expect of a Jewish rabbinical
writer who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.

On
the subject of a precise mention of the time period Jesus was sought by the
authorities, McDowell proposes the possibility that “The forty days may only be
an apologetic device designed to deny that the trial was a speedy one.”[6] The reference to 40 days
may be an indicator that the authorities were seeking an opportunity to dispose
of this troublemaker from Nazareth. In fact, the Bible mentions this in several
places, without providing an exact time frame (John 5:18 and John 11:53-57).

Authenticity

Paul
L. Maier, Ph.D., is Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan
University. His research includes a variety of methodologies involved in
manuscript and textual analysis, archaeology, and comparison of sacred and
secular sources from the first century A.D. Dr. Maier makes several points
regarding the authenticity of this reference:

“Four items in this
statement strongly support its authenticity as a notice composed before
Jesus' arrest: 1) The future tense is used; 2) Stoning was the regular
punishment for blasphemy among the Jews whenever the Roman government was not
involved; 3) There is no reference whatever to crucifixion; and 4) That Jesus
was performing "sorcery"— the extraordinary or miraculous with a
negative spin—is quite remarkable. This not only invokes what historians call
the "criterion of embarrassment," which proves what is conceded, but
accords perfectly with how Jesus' opponents explained away his miraculous
healings: performing them with the help of Beelzebub (Luke 11:18).”[7]

Conclusion

The
bottom line is this: The Talmudic
reference to Jesus is another in a long line of extra-Biblical documentary
records that corroborate information found in the Bible. Many valid reasons
exist for the authenticity of the Bible and this is one more piece of evidence
showing that the Biblical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth can be trusted.

For
those who wish to further research the historicity of Jesus Christ, the books
listed in the endnotes of this article by Gary Habermas, as well as Josh
McDowell and Bill Wilson, are highly recommended.

[Biblical
references are from the NASB version.]

[1]Gary
R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ
(Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 202.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

How many men struggle with this
issue? Aside from those who always give in (no struggle there), nearly “every
man” is tempted by attractive women or visual images. It’s no wonder this book
has become so popular, selling more than 2.5 million copies. The topic could
not be more relevant today, considering the explosion of pornography and use of
sexuality to sell everything from beer to movies and television shows. How can
men find the motivation and strategies to resist this fast rising flood? This
book provides those things for Christian men who desire to overcome this
temptation as well as other guys who want to remain faithful to their wives.

Three perimeters

Stephen Arterburn and Fred
Stoeker describe the goal as this: Sexual purity when no gratification is
obtained from anyone or anything but one’s wife. To accomplish this, they
outline where three perimeters which must be established: eyes, mind, and heart. The eyes must bounce
from objects of lust. The mind must evaluate and capture thoughts. The heart
must honor and cherish one’s wife. These concepts are explained in more detail
in the book. The authors make the point that impurity is not genetic (i.e., “I’m
male, so I’ll have impure eyes and an impure mind”), but is a habit. And, if it
lives like a habit, it can die like a habit (pp. 105-106).

Your sword

When tempted by our own desires
and/or Satan, we can counter these in the same manner as Jesus, with the word
of God found in the Bible. By memorizing only a small number of key verses we
can quickly utter when tempted, say the authors, we can fight off the attacks
(p. 141). For example, when a situation arises, we can state as Job did, “I have
made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin” (Job 31:1). Or,
we may have this statement of Jesus ready: “but I say to you that
everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
(Matthew 5:28)

The mustang mind

Arterburn and Stoeker explain the
natural male mind as like a free roaming mustang, mating with whomever it can.
To be faithful to one wife and true to God, the mustang must be brought into a
corral. Some proper mindsets are useful in bringing the mustang under control.
Our first line of defense when tempted with another woman may include the
realization that “This attraction threatens everything I hold dear” (p. 169). Involvement
with another woman will ruin a marriage and family. A second line of defense is
to declare, “I have no right to think these things.” I belong to another woman
and am bought by God with a price (1 Corinthians 6:20).

Strategies and
tactics

Once the decision has been made
to choose excellence, specific tactics must be employed to achieve victory. The
authors list two key strategies: bouncing the eyes and starving the eyes.
Immediately upon noticing an attractive woman, one must bounce the eyes away.
If this strategy is consistently followed for six weeks, the authors state “you
can win the war” (p. 125). To help accomplish this, two logical steps include
studying oneself to determine weaknesses and defining defenses for these weaknesses
(p. 126).

Sometimes men may find themselves
in a situation in which a friendship begins to grow with another woman. Rather
than waiting to see what might happen, we must prepare with “war game” simulations.
What if she makes advances? What if you find yourself alone with her? As Josh
McDowell advised teens to decide what to do before
getting into the backseat of a car, we plan ahead (p. 173). Starving the eyes
is part of the defense perimeter. By eliminating the “junk sex” of looking from
one’s life, the “real food” – a wife – will be much more satisfying (p. 134).

The authors also provide some
useful advice for women to help their husbands to overcome this addiction:

·Watch what he watches on
television

·Help him to find the new
equilibrium

·Defuse the seventy-two hour cycle
of heightened sexual arousal typical for men

·Allow him to ogle you a bit

·Do regular status checkups of the
situation

Cherishing

The third and innermost perimeter
involves “being consumed with God’s purpose to cherish your wife” (187). This
can be difficult if she does not behave in a deserving manner. However, the
authors make the admonition: “If you
don’t feel like cherishing, cherish anyway. Your right feelings will arrive
soon enough” (198). If a man sees his wife as a precious gift and remembers to
follow Christ’s example of demonstrating love before being loved in return, he
will be more able to cherish her.

Conclusion

Arterburn and Stoeker
provide inspiration and present some strategies to overcome sexual addiction. Additional
practical, specific methods are available as well to those presented here. Some
examples include: internet filters,
accountability partners, and recovery groups. While every man’s battle is not
an all-inclusive, comprehensive guide to overcoming sexual temptation, it is
motivating and provides much useful guidance.

The authors

Stephen Arterburn is the founder
and chairman of New Life Clinics and host of the popular New Life Live national radio program. He has authored more than 40
books and won three Gold Medallion awards. He has degrees from Baylor
University and the University of North Texas.

Fred Stoeker is the founder and
chairman of Living True Ministries. He graduated from Stanford University with
honors.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Is
it acceptable for a Christian to look at pornography? Does God approve? If He
disapproves, why did He give us such a strong sex drive, particularly men, who
are easily aroused by visual stimuli? An estimated $97 billion was spent on pornography worldwide in
2006. Statistics for internet porn are
estimated at about 4.2 million websites, the average age of first exposure 11
years old, and 66% of men in their 20s and 30s report being regular users of
pornography.[1] A
poll of 1,000 respondents conducted on a Christian website found that 50% of
Christian men and 20% of Christian women admitted to being addicted to
pornography[2] - and those are the ones
who admitted it. One report indicated that 70% of porn is viewed between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m.[3], frequently on the office
computer. Many more similar statistics could be given but, suffice to say, the
porn industry is enormous. So many people can’t be wrong, right?

What does the Bible say?

Many
books in the Bible clearly condemn sexual activity outside of marriage. But,
what if someone is only looking? The Bible also warns against lust of the eyes
(1 John 2:16) and heart (Proverbs 6:24-25). Jesus stated, “I say to you that
everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28) According to
Jesus, looking with desire or lust is also improper. And Job, even though he
had no internet, DVDs, or magazines, recognized the potential pitfall of lust
involving the eyes (Job 31:1).

But, why?

Certainly it’s wise to obey God even when we
don’t know the reason. But, as humans, we are curious and want to know why.
This is especially true when the action only involves looking. What if someone
never mistreats women or commits any sexual crime, but only views porn – why is
that wrong?

Any addiction places us in bondage (Romans
6:16). A Christian should not be involved in any behavior that places us under
bondage or may damage our witness to others (Romans 14:21). And, if a
particular behavior causes our heart to condemn us, we should avoid that
activity (Romans 14:22 and 1 John 3:21).

Lust is a form of covetousness, which is
detrimental to all people, not only Christians. One of the Ten Commandments
directly addresses this issue:

Combining
this commandment with the admonition for men to have their own wives (1
Corinthians 7:2) and be satisfied with one’s own wife (Proverbs 5:18), lust of
the eyes would seem to be illicit (1 Corinthians 7:9). Now, someone may make
the point that he does not desire to possess the women in the videos and photos;
rather, only to look at them. Besides, these women pose for the camera
voluntarily and for money. So, they are not unwilling participants in most
cases. (We will set aside for now the argument that a certain percentage of
these girls and women are coerced to some degree, possibly through drug
addiction.)

A
Christian must ask himself whether this behavior is worth missing eternal life,
considering Paul’s comment:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will
not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, … nor
adulterers … nor the covetous … will
inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

God
is certainly willing to forgive (Psalm 136:1, Isaiah 1:18, Psalm 103:3), but we
must first admit the behavior is sinful (1 John 1:8-9).

It’s not adultery if I’m
not married, right?

Jesus said anyone who looks at a woman to
lust after her has committed adultery in his heart and adultery applies to
those who are married. Would it be correct to say this verse is not applicable
to those who are single? Well, the Bible states we should avoid sexual
immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18 and 2 Timothy 2:22), which can be committed by
those who are not married as well as those who are. In 1 Corinthians 7:9, the
Apostle Paul speaks directly to those who are unmarried advising to either
exercise self control or marry. This does not sound like Paul is giving free
license for singles to engage in any sexual behavior they please.

Using images of women to gratify one’s lust
leads to objectification of females. Rather than considering them as valuable
persons made in God’s image, women are perceived as objects to satisfy a man’s
selfish desires. The fact that women allow themselves to play this role does
not change the male perception. Public nudity - other than Adam and Eve
(Genesis 2:25) before sin entered the world - is described disparagingly in the
Bible (Genesis 9:23, Ezekiel 16:36, Ezekiel 23:18, and others). God’s design
and plan is for a woman’s body to be enjoyed by her husband (and vice versa),
not shown on the internet or DVDs as an object of desire for the entire world.

(For additional information regarding God’s best plan for
our lives, see the article on this website “Does God disapprove of sex?”)

What is
the difference between adultery and fornication?

Adultery is
distinguished from fornication in the Bible in several passages and both are
described as sinful behavior:

“Marriage is to be held in honor among
all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews
13:4)

The
Hebrew word used to indicate adultery in the Old Testament is na’ap (Strong’s 5003), which is more
specifically defined as: “to commit
adultery; … adulterer, adulteress; by extension: to be unfaithful to God (by
having illicit relations with other gods) … break wedlock”[4] The Greek word moicheuo (Strong’s 3431) is used in most
New Testament references, indicating the same basic meaning: “to commit adultery; … to become an
adulterer”[5]

The
word “fornicate” in the Greek is πόρνος (pornos, Strong’s # 4205), which is translated as:

The bottom line is
this: Sexual activity outside of
marriage is considered to be sinful in the Bible.

But, it’s harmless

It’s true that many men view porn and never abuse
women or children. However, many do. Much porn available today involves
children and violence. In only one police operation, 1,500 individuals were
arrested internationally and in the United States for downloading child porn.[7]
That’s not even the tip of the iceberg. Almost without exception, those who
commit sexual offenses and murder of women are heavily involved in pornography
consumption. The California Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Obscenity
and Pornography remarked that: “In
interviews with a great many police officers, the Committee was frequently
told, ‘I never arrested a child molester who did not have pornography in his
possession.’ Also stated in the report: ‘in an investigation of more than 40
cases of child molestation by the Los Angeles Police Department, including
interviews with more than 100 victims and suspects, officers found that
pornography was a factor in every single case.’”[8]
One report found 116,000 daily “child pornography” requests on the internet.[9]
While it is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, all or
almost all of those who go on to abuse children begin by viewing pornographic
images.

Isn’t this just normal
male behavior?

But seriously, does anyone expect normal men
to not look? Besides, God made guys that way – so it’s His fault, right?
Telling a guy not to look at an attractive female is like telling a dog not to
bark. Using this logic, since people are selfish and prideful by nature, those
who behave as such are not morally culpable. Simply because something is in our
nature does not give free license to act on it. Most humans are lazy by nature,
but we consider it beneath us to remain in that state. All people have a sinful
nature, as Paul explains (Romans 7:18), which wars against what we know in our
mind is good (Romans 7:23). Paul lists the deeds of the flesh, or human nature:

“Now the deeds of the
flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,

One could easily make
the argument that, because these are part of our nature, we should be free to
act upon them without condemnation. But, Paul goes on to state, “as I have
forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the
kingdom of God.” (v. 21b)

Brain chemistry

Chemical activity in the brain during pornography
usage is nearly identical to that which occurs in drug addiction. Testifying
before a Senate subcommittee, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.S., M.D., stated:

“…modern
science allows us to understand that the underlying nature of an addiction to
pornography is chemically nearly identical to a heroin addiction: Only the
delivery system is different, and the sequence of steps. That is why heroin addicts
in particular give up sex and routinely compare their ‘rushes’ to ‘orgasms’. The
chemistry involved is as follows: Upon viewing or reading the ‘expression’, the
pornography addict experiences an irresistible impulse to self-stimulation…
Upon achieving climax, the brain releases opioids—chemicals that are the
naturally occurring analogs to synthetic opiates such as morphine or heroin.”[10]

Larry and Wendy Maltz, both Licensed Clinical
Social Workers with more than 25 years of experience with sexually related
issues, have concluded:

“… porn can
have as powerful an effect on your body and brain as cocaine, methamphetamine,
alcohol, and other drugs. It actually changes your brain chemistry. Porn
stimulates and area of the brain known as the 'hedonic highway,' or median
forebrain, which is filled with receptors for the neurotransmitter dopamine.
Dopamine is released when you get sexually aroused. It is also released by
other pleasurable activities, such as kissing, intercourse, smoking a
cigarette, or taking other drugs. Porn causes the dopamine production in your
system to spike. This dramatic increase in dopamine produces a drug-like high
some researchers believe is most similar to the high caused by crack cocaine.”[11]

Conclusion

This article is not intended to advocate
political or legislative action; rather, to provide accurate information. The
message promoted in society today is that pornography is perfectly acceptable.
However, the enemy (Satan) would like to weigh down and entangle Christians
(Hebrews 12:1) with foolish and sinful behavior. God has a higher calling and
purpose for every one of us (2 Timothy 2:21).
Ephesians 5:3 states, “among you there must not be even a hint of sexual
immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper
for God's holy people.” This is not
meant to bring condemnation, but to show that we have a greater purpose as children
of God (Galatians 3:26), heirs of God (Romans 8:17), and coworkers with God (2
Corinthians 6:1). To run the race to our full potential, we must throw off
every weight that hinders.

(For those who need help in breaking
this habit, the book every man’s battle,
by Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stoeker, is recommended.)

[Biblical quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible
unless otherwise noted.]

[10]Testimony
before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, “Hearing
on the Brain Science Behind Pornography Addiction and the Effects of Addiction
on Families and Communities, 18 Nov 2004, www.princeton.edu.